In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, the radial approach is associated with favorable outcomes and should be the preferred approach for experienced radial operators.

Purpose This study aimed to determine if sequential deployment of a nurse-led Rapid Response Team (RRT) and an intensivist-led Medical Emergency Team (MET) for critically ill patients in the Emergency Department (ED) and acute care wards improved hospital-wide cardiac arrest rates. Methods In this single-center, retrospective observational cohort study, we compared the cardiac arrest rates per 1000 patient-days during two time periods. Our hospital instituted a nurse-led RRT in 2012 and added an intensivist-led MET in 2014. We compared the cardiac arrest rates during the nurse-led RRT period and the combined RRT-MET period. With the sequential approach, nurse-led RRT evaluated and managed rapid response calls in acute care wards and if required escalated care and co-managed with an intensivist-led MET. We specifically compared the rates of pulseless electrical activity (PEA) in the two periods. We also looked at the cardiac arrest rates in the ED as RRT-MET co-managed patients with the ED team. Results Hospital-wide cardiac arrests decreased from 2.2 events per 1000 patient-days in the nurse-led RRT period to 0.8 events per 1000 patient-days in the combined RRT and MET period (p-value = 0.001). Hospital-wide PEA arrests and shockable rhythms both decreased significantly. PEA rhythms significantly decreased in acute care wards and the ED. Conclusion Implementing an intensivist-led MET-RRT significantly decreased the overall cardiac arrest rate relative to the rate under a nurse-led RRT model. Additional MET capabilities and early initiation of advanced, time-sensitive therapies likely had the most impact.

Although prices for medical services are known to vary markedly between hospitals, it remains unknown whether variation in hospital prices is explained by differences in hospital quality or reimbursement from major insurers. We obtained “out-of-pocket” price estimates for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from a random sample of US hospitals for a hypothetical patient without medical insurance. We compared hospital CABG price to (1) “fair price” estimate from Healthcare Bluebook data using each hospital’s zip code and (2) Society of Thoracic Surgeons composite CABG quality score and risk-adjusted mortality rate. Of 101 study hospitals, 53 (52.5%) were able to provide a complete price estimate for CABG. The mean price for CABG was $151,271 and ranged from $44,824 to $448,038. Except for geographic census region, which was weakly associated with price, hospital CABG price was not associated with other structural characteristics or CABG volume (p >0.10 for all). Likewise, there was no association between a hospital’s price for CABG with average reimbursement from major insurers within the same zip code (ρ = 0.07, p value = 0.6), Society of Thoracic Surgeon composite quality score (ρ = 0.08, p value = 0.71), or risk-adjusted CABG mortality (ρ = −0.03 p value = 0.89). In conclusion, the price of CABG varied more than 10-fold across US hospitals. There was no correlation between price information obtained from hospitals and the average reimbursement from major insurers in the same market. We also found no evidence to suggest that hospitals that charge higher prices provide better quality of care.

No abstract